Beckmann Nicholas A, Weiss Stefan, Klotz Matthias C M, Gondan Matthias, Jaeger Sebastian, Bitsch Rudi G
Department of Orthopedics, Trauma Surgery and Spinal Cord Injury, Heidelberg, Germany.
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan;29(1):229-35. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.035. Epub 2013 May 27.
The best method of revision acetabular arthroplasty remains unclear. Consequently, we reviewed the literature on the treatment of revision acetabular arthroplasty using revision rings (1541 cases; mean follow-up (FU) 5.7 years) and Trabecular Metal, or TM, implants (1959 cases; mean FU 3.7 years) to determine if a difference with regard to revision failure could be determined. Failure rates of the respective implants were compared statistically using a logistic regression model with adjustment for discrepancies in FU time. In our study, TM shows statistically significant decreased loosening rates relative to revision rings for all grades including severe acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. The severe defects appear to benefit the most from TM.
翻修髋臼置换术的最佳方法仍不明确。因此，我们回顾了关于使用翻修环（1541例；平均随访（FU）5.7年）和小梁金属（TM）植入物（1959例；平均FU 3.7年）治疗翻修髋臼置换术的文献，以确定是否能确定翻修失败方面的差异。使用逻辑回归模型对FU时间差异进行调整，对各植入物的失败率进行统计学比较。在我们的研究中，对于包括严重髋臼缺损和骨盆连续性中断在内的所有等级，TM相对于翻修环在统计学上显示出显著降低的松动率。严重缺损似乎从TM中获益最大。
